PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYA Y & Ors. v. V.K. KAPOOR & Anr.

It was contended for the appellants that in view of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal as confirmed by the Supreme Court, the appellants were not only entitled to be appointed as Charge- E man Grade-II, but also entitled to promotion to higher grades and respective notional seniority at each level having regard to the fact that those who were juniors to them had been promoted in terms of Rule 18.4.3. On the direction of the Court, the department filed a status report F admitting that benefit of the order of the Tribunal was given to some employees, but could not be given to the appellants due to the pend ency of the appeal as also interpretation on concept of notional seniority by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment. G Allowing the appeal, the Court _..,.. ~-'- HELD: 1. According to the appellants, their case falls under category I of the Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal. This fact has also been accepted by the respondents in their status report. Thus, if H I ~ ~ I* -1.: .,. ~--- ' ---r ;' ?- 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A the appellants were to be appointed and or promoted as Charge-man Grade-II before 1st January, 1973, they became senior to the other employees. Some employees had been given the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal. The action on the part of the respondents giving benefit of the order of the Tribunal to some employees and denying the B same to the appellants is wholly unjustifiable. The judgment of a court, as is well known, should not be read as a statute. It has to be read in its entirety. So read, the appellants had become entitled to the grant of benefits contemplated thereby. There is no reason why the same shall be denied to them. The State cannot treat employees similarly situated c differently. It, while implementing the orders in relation to one cannot refuse fo do so in relation to others. [Paras 19 and 20) (473-B, C, D, E, G; 474-A] Ramesh Chand Dagav. Rameshwari Bai [2005) 4 SCC 772; Islamic D Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, [2003) 6 SCC 697; Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India, [2005) 4 SCC 649 and P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd, [2004) 11SCC672, relied on. ;-- JS. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 291; and Vijay Singh, Secretary Home andAnr. v. Mittan/al Hindoliya, (1997] 1 SCC 258, distinguished.